|
| September 03, 2006 | Sunday | Sha'aban 9, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Developing Thar coal
Another building collapse
The sky is the limit
Europe’s bold move
“IF autonomy is the solution to the Kashmir problem, then the sky is the limit” — this declaration (or words to this effect) was made by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao of India, in the early ‘90s. President General Musharraf in recent interviews with the Indian TV journalist, Karan Thapar, and the scholarly journalist, A.G. Noorani, (Frontline) has been testing the limits of the Indian sky.
THE entire Bugti episode has been marked by the most atrocious mishandling, insensitivity and confusion on the part of the government. When the Baloch leader’s body was reported to have been finally recovered after many contradictory statements, it was expected that the burial would be a dignified affair and would, at least temporarily, provide some solace to his family, friends and followers. But even this was not to be. The body was padlocked into a coffin, which was not opened. Reporters who were taken to the burial site in the Bugti graveyard asked to see the body, but were told that it was in such a state of decomposition that this was not possible. A local maulvi was said to have identified the body, although there seems to be some doubt about that too. A local official waved Bugti’s watch and spectacles to establish proof of the body’s identity (our reporters have rightly wondered how these survived without a scratch if Bugti was crushed under huge rock slabs and his body mutilated).
The authorities say the family was contacted to attend the funeral but refused; the family denies this. In the event, a group of a dozen people attended the funeral prayers in the graveyard. The family alleges that the body was not handed over to them because it would have shown marks that would have established how Nawab Bugti died (or was killed, as the venerable minister for parliamentary affairs holds). It was also said by one official spokesman that they didn’t know to whom among the family they should hand over the body and since no one had come forward to claim it, it was being unilaterally buried. In normal circumstances, what happens when a person dies? His body is taken care of by his sons and family. This is what should have been done in this case too: the body should have been entrusted to the care of Nawab Bugti’s sons to make arrangements for the funeral as they deemed appropriate. Now a big question mark has been created about the identity of the body inside the coffin, and the credibility of the government’s account has been brought into question. It appears appropriate that an independent commission should investigate Nawab Bugti’s killing and the events preceding and following it, and the report of the inquiry be speedily completed and placed before parliament.
This is necessary also to assuage the feelings of anger and hurt that have been generated on a wide scale by the military operation. Friday’s strike in response to a call by the opposition was almost total in Sindh and Balochistan and was partially observed in the Frontier. There is always an element of fear about what might happen that plays a part in strikes and shutdowns involving commerce and transport, but there is no evidence that any coercion was used by the opposition to enforce its strike call. The federal information minister, who is proving as verbose as his immediate predecessor, had predicted that just as the no-confidence motion had failed, the strike too would fail. It didn’t, and one waits to see how the minister explains his misreading of the situation. The fact is that the military-led government’s efforts to solve political problems through force and bombast have isolated it as never before in the past seven years.
ESTIMATES of the current power shortage in the country vary from expert to expert. On one point, however, there is a clear consensus: Pakistan’s energy crisis will assume critical proportions in the foreseeable future if plans to substantially increase generation capacity are delayed any further. Besides infrastructure development, the uninterrupted supply of power-generation inputs is a major concern. The government itself now admits that there is no “tangible or bankable” progress on proposed gas pipelines from regional suppliers. This is a critical, though expected, setback given that domestic gas output alone cannot meet future power generation needs. Oil-fired plants, though vital in the short term to fill existing shortages, are becoming increasingly unviable because of costlier petroleum products. Also, there is no consensus in sight on big dams that can produce cheap hydroelectricity on a large scale. However, this doesn’t mean that we should not go full-speed ahead on the construction of small- and medium-sized hydroelectric projects.
In this dire scenario, there is an urgent need to focus on indigenous and cost-effective sources of power generation. Pakistan’s estimated coal deposits are second only to those of the US but coal’s share in electricity generation is less than one per cent — compared to 77 per cent in India, 58 per cent in the UK and 52 per cent in the US. Sindh accounts for 99.7 per cent of the country’s 184.66 billion tons of coal deposits, of which 175.51 billion tons are located in Thar. According to the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, the country “can generate around 20,000 megawatts for almost 40 years” by using only two per cent of existing coal reserves. Clearly, the way forward lies in developing Thar’s vast coal resources. It is imperative, however, that the authorities take into account the serious environmental risks associated with coal processing and utilisation — especially the release of particulates and greenhouse gases — as well as the potentially hazardous impact of the mining process itself. Coal power need not be as ‘dirty’ as it used to be. In this connection, the focus must be on relatively clean European technology that is already proving to be commercially viable. The US may attempt to use Pakistan as a dumping ground for the obsolete plants it needs to phase out to meet its own environmental standards. This must not be allowed to happen.
BARELY a week after the collapse of an illegally constructed building in Lahore, news that an eight-storey building came down and killed four people in Murree on Thursday is tragic. That the building had been earlier ordered to be demolished — as it was damaged during last year’s earthquake — makes the occurrence even more disturbing, for it shows utter disregard for rules and regulations in the construction of multi-storey buildings. Anger is bound to surface over the fact that deaths may have been averted had the authorities ensured strict compliance with the rules during construction and moved quickly to vacate the building after it was declared unsafe. But official apathy seems to have become the norm and it is the public that must bear the brunt of such irregularities and indifference. How many more lives are in danger can be gauged from a report after the Lahore incident that only one building out of 95 in the Shahalam market is legally constructed. The Lahore Development Authority must be taken to task for its gross negligence on this score. The district nazim has said that he wants to put in place a comprehensive strategy that would disallow the building of illegal structures. Although this is stating the obvious, what the authorities need to do is to proceed against violators and enforce a strict monitoring system that ensures that no additional structures are built without prior approval.
The relevant nazim for Murree has also said that a technical committee will identify dangerous and illegally built buildings in the area. It is sad that a tragic incident had to happen to make the authorities realise that they were not doing their job of checking that no one was in violation of building rules and regulations. The authorities need to ensure that they have proper records of all buildings and strictly enforce building codes to avert any future tragedy.
The history of direct negotiations with India on any serious issue is bad. Prime Minister Nehru reneged on solemn commitments to implement the UN sanctioned plebiscite in Kashmir. The reason: Pakistan did not withdraw its forces from Azad Kashmir as required under the UN resolutions (when later it disagreed to withdraw, India backed out). The 1954 Pakistan-US Defence pact was then cited as a reason for the final renege on the UN resolutions. India said that the pact had caused an “imbalance” in the subcontinent: when India itself acquired US arms during its China war in 1962, was not the “imbalance” removed? No, said India.
Much the same thing happened in the Siachen negotiations. An “agreement” between senior officials was hammered out in Islamabad at the fifth round of marathon meetings in June 1989. The joint declaration of June 17, 1989 by the foreign secretaries read as under:
“There was an agreement by both sides to work towards a comprehensive settlement, based on redeployment of forces to reduce the chances of conflict, avoidance of the use of force and the determination of future positions on the ground so as to conform with the Simla Agreement and to ensure durable peace in the Siachen area. The army authorities of both sides will determine these positions.”
At the concluding press conference, Foreign Secretary Humayun Khan spoke of a joint commitment to relocate “forces to positions occupied at the time of the Simla Agreement”. Foreign Secretary S.K. Singh of India replied, “I would like to thank the Foreign Secretary, Dr. Humayun Khan, and endorse everything he has said.”
The very next day the Indian foreign office repudiated the “agreement”
Much the same happened in Agra in July 2001. A joint declaration was worked out between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf. The chairs were even positioned for the signing ceremony. India reneged minutes before the signing.
I quote below excerpts from the interview that President Musharraf gave to Mr. A.G. Noorani on August 1, this year. Said President Musharraf: “...The other thing I want to bring out is that when I had two sessions with Prime Minister Vajpayee, a one-on-one meetings, and we decided on the framework, when we broke for lunch, a script comes in front of him, and he totally negates what we had just been discussing inside for hours....”
The President adds: “The issue of what the reality was I really don’t know. The reason they had given was that the cabinet had not approved. I said, “Which cabinet? I don’t see any cabinet here. Had the cabinet met?”
One suspects that if and when serious discussions commence in Havana or New York, one may find the Indian position on Kashmir autonomy pretty vague or riddled with holes. There is, however, one saving grace and that is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — a happy departure from the usual run of Indian politicians — a man of intellectual and moral integrity, a person whose word can be relied upon.
The autonomy proposals rest on two pillars: phased withdrawal of the militaries from their respective Kashmir parts, and self-governance on both sides — self-governance in its fullest meaning and spirit. Pakistan’s autonomy proposals on Kashmir contemplate no change in the state’s legal status, population or territorial exchange. Prima facie this appears to be the only rational solution to this vexed problem.
Mutual troop withdrawals from the autonomous area is the core requirement. The trickier part is to define the scope, content and depth of self-governance. An autonomy drawn up on the model of the South Tyrol agreement between Austria, Italy and the South Tyrol people provides quasi-independence short of sovereignty. Just as Italian sovereignty of South Tyrol is of considerable importance, so is the intention that the Line of Control becomes irrelevant. This solution is perhaps the only solution for all three parties involved in this vexed dispute. President Musharraf has gone the extra mile to say on record that an acceptable autonomy agreement can lead to a peace treaty with India, and the mutual withdrawal of the Kashmir case from the United Nations.
For now how should both sides proceed? It is important that India and Pakistan be guided by the opinions of the Kashmiris. The Kashmiri leaders on both sides are well known. However, for the success of the inter-Kashmir dialogue, it is essential that the Hizbul Mujahideen leader, the main fighting group in the valley, is invited to the dialogue. This would suggest that the intra-dialogue takes place outside the subcontinent. Maldives as a conference location might be acceptable to all.
Given below are some of the issues on which Kashmiri ‘advice’ to India and Pakistan would be crucial to evolving a consensus on autonomy.
Should Laddakh, Northern Regions and possibly Jammu be part of the autonomy process?
How and in what phases should the militaries be withdrawn — firstly to garrisons and later out of the autonomous area?
Should article 370 of the Indian constitution be considered as a base for Autonomy? If so, what changes, if any, are required to ensure its applicability to the respective Kashmiri sides?
In regard to disputes arising between an autonomous region and India or Pakistan, what mechanism will decide the issue? The Rann of Katchh tribunal is an example. The South Tyrol agreement was clinched when both Austria and Italy agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, if a dispute arose. None has.
What institutional arrangements should be made between the autonomous zones to provide freedom of travel and trade to Kashmiris?
What institutional arrangements are required to combat terrorism?
Will respective election commissions be supreme in their jurisdictions or should there be a joint commission?
In respect of appeals arising from decisions made by the respective High Courts, is there scope for a Kashmir supreme court covering for the autonomous area?
These are not easy questions to answer. The ‘advice’ of the inter-Kashmiri dialogue is not binding on Pakistan or India — but it is binding on the two countries to play a mentor role as opposed to an adversarial one to heal the fractures of the inter-Kashmir divisions. Human Rights organizations in both counties too have a role to play in ensuring that terrorism does not muddy the process.
India and Pakistan need to convince each other that they are not sponsors of terrorism and liberation armies. There should be joint investigations, with full access to intelligence, where one suspects the other. A good starting confidence building measure would be a joint investigation, with the assistance of Interpol, of the Mumbai blasts.
The writer is an MNA. murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk
PROOF of the old adage about prevention being cheaper than any cure is available in abundance as the international community struggles to cope with the disastrous and expensive consequences of the Lebanon war.
The European Union has performed better in the peace than it did during the fighting, overcoming its reticence and divisions to pledge thousands of troops for an expanded UN force that will be deployed along the dangerous border with Israel. Germany’s offer of 1,500 personnel, albeit not ground forces, is a remarkable advance. Italy has been bold too.
The generous commitments made on Thursday in Stockholm will go some way to financing emergency and reconstruction aid, with $940m being nearly twice the targeted amount. But Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, was hardly exaggerating when he said that his country, “full of hope and promise” a few weeks ago, “has been torn to shreds by destruction, displacement, dispossession, desolation, and death”.
European cash can help rebuild thousands of homes, roads and bridges damaged or destroyed by Israel and deal with many thousands of mines and unexploded cluster bombs. But it is important that it be channelled through the Lebanese government and not Hezbollah. The militant Shia movement may be the pride of Tehran and hero of the Arab and Islamic worlds for having humbled Israel - fostering the reckless illusion that a return to armed struggle is a bright idea - but it should not be rewarded for having ignited the conflict with provocative attacks.
Kofi Annan, touring the region yesterday, was right to again demand Israel end its seven-week air and sea blockade of Lebanon and withdraw its forces, not waiting for the deployment of the full 15,000-strong peacekeeping force. But it is hard to see the beleaguered Ehud Olmert being worried by the suggestion that Israel would not want to be seen to be punishing the entire Lebanese people.
—The Guardian, London